Does the latest terrorist plot make you wonder.....
Comments
-
stacey wrote:
I did not lose anyone that day but I was certainly traumatized and don't expect that I will ever fully be "over it." I have to think that some of the people with the "what's the big deal about terrorism?" posts on this thread were not actually living in NYC in 2001.
AW please dont make such a blanket statement - I know you dont mean to hurt anyone by it but it really upsets me. I lost a lot of people on 9/11 family and friends. I still to this day cannot talk about it or think about it too much. -
My bad stacey.
Rose wrote: [quote=stacey]
I did not lose anyone that day but I was certainly traumatized and don't expect that I will ever fully be "over it." I have to think that some of the people with the "what's the big deal about terrorism?" posts on this thread were not actually living in NYC in 2001.
AW please dont make such a blanket statement - I know you dont mean to hurt anyone by it but it really upsets me. I lost a lot of people on 9/11 family and friends. I still to this day cannot talk about it or think about it too much.
i lived through both attacks on the trade center. first time happen while i was cutting school with a friend and our tv went out.
second time was driving to college and saw all the ash around me thinking it was snow or something. some of my friends at the emt at school drove to the site.
I think the black out a few years ago effected more people than the terrorist attacks ever could of. but one is just more emotional for people and tv magnifieds it alot. -
kosherdave wrote: But that's no reason to be ashamaed of being American, it's more of a reason to go out and prove the sterotypes wrong. When you're abroad, let 'em know you're an American.
Agree completely. Few things irritate me more (on a superficial level) than Americans who openly accept Brit and Continental snobbery about being American. The instant stereotypes that so many Europeans love to apply to any and all Americans is insulting and indicative not of any superiority, but rather of intolerance.
Americans who take the "you're right! America does suck and GWB is an ass" approach have a very limited view, IMO. -
armchair_warrior wrote: think the black out a few years ago effected more people than the terrorist attacks ever could of. but one is just more emotional for people and tv magnifieds it alot..
I am confused what you meant by that? 9/11 was a truly traumatic event for everyone in New York! To lose people in a seneseless act of terrorism, to suddenly no longer feel "safe" to watch the buildings crumble knowing you are watching husbands, wives sons, daughters, parents die and knowing the ripple of tragedy that is spreading? Blackout? Huh? Could you explain how the blackout could possibly have effected people more than what happened that day?
To me, in a sense the terrorists already did win in that many people no longer feel completely safe. People like Stacy who suffered personal losses jump at a loud noise. I think a lot of us cringe at low flying planes (case in point the air show in June caused a lot of fear in New Yorkers who didn't know why the planes were flying so low that day). -
I'm posting with trepidation because I know this is a terribly sensitive subject now, but I think it's one of the most important conversations people should be having now, so here goes.
stacey wrote: Again when you have lived through a terrorist attack and others you love did not then hell yeah I tend to "react" . We now work right across from the stock exchange and anytime a hear a bang my heart jumps to my throat and I automatically reach for my bag to make a run for it. Are you telling me that I am overreacting?
I'm terribly sorry for your loss, and understand what a profound impact an event like that can have on a person. I was lucky enough not to have been personally endangered by 9/11 (I happen to have been safe in Jersey at the time) though several close friends were (thankfully, all were eventually discovered to be okay). I cannot imagine what it must have been like for people who lived through the event from a much closer standpoint.
That being said, yes, I do think you're overreacting, though I would like to think that I understand why. The fact still remains that you are far more likely to be harmed in any one of a vast number of mundane, everyday accidents than you are to be harmed by terrorism. The very power of terrorism (and incidentally the main appeal of it as a tactic) is that it makes people irrationally afraid.
Do I think we should be worried about terrorism? Yes, but worried, not terrified, not even scared. Terrorism is has been a far greater threat in a number of countries for a very long time than it has ever been, or currently is, here, and without exception life goes on in those countries much as it had in the halcyon days before international terrorism was as common as it, unfortunately, is today.
A rational response would be to increase the sort of intelligent, effective law enforcement actions that led to the prevention of this latest attack -- investigation, realistic assesment of threat, intelligence gathering -- rather than blanket pronouncements to the public at large that essentially amount to "You should be scared." I don't believe that a populace that is frightened is any less susceptible to threat than one that isn't, and any policy that does little more than stoke the fear that the attack was meant to produce in the first place is a bad policy. I think the public's fear of terrorist attack has been deliberately inflated by both the government and the mainstream media, for a variety of reasons (none of which really matter to my argument).stacey wrote: [quote=bripod]
Then if they didn't tell us, and it really does happen then everyone would complain conspriacy, etc.
What makes me crazy is seeing the reaction by government officials to terrorist attacks, which essentially seems to be to ramp up everyone's already heightened sense of fear. I mean, the statement from Scotland Yard describes this week's foiled plot as an attempt to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."
I'm not saying that they shouldn't tell us. I'm saying that I think it's the role of government and the media to present the information to the public in more reasonable manner -- i.e., I would like it if I could rely on those most in position to disseminate accurate and timely information to do so in a more measured, rational way. Instead of trying to terrify people at a time when their emotions are understandably running very high, I'd like rational, calm advice on precisely how worried I should be. Instead, I get "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" and "no more beverages on airplanes." Yesterday at Dulles a woman was asked to peel her banana for fear it might conceal an explosive device (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/10/news/liquid.php) -- it's this kind of "security theater" that diverts effort and money from realistic anti-terror measures that might actually help make us safer, like better explosives screening at airports.stacey wrote: Im not bashing what people feel but remember there are those who are very sensitive to this subjct. Being a target of terrorist attacks on our own soil is pretty new to us and we are learning as we go along, I do think there is room for improvement but I have to hope that we will find something that works.
Yes, it's a very sensitive subject. I've tried to make my point here in what I hope is a sensitive manner -- if not, I apologize. I don't mean to attack or criticize anyone personally for however frightened/worried/etc. they may personally be. I do think it's important to talk about how realistically frightened we as a society should be.
I just happen to think we're collectively a lot more frightened than we have reason to be, and I think it's at least partially the fault of the government and media bodies from whom we recieve our information about terrorism, who seem (at least in my opinion) to be more interested in scaring us than in giving us helpful information. -
Thanks biprod - I dont take it as an attack at all
. I do understand where you are coming from. For instance while I did lose people I love that day, I have lost many more to AIDS and cancer, but with those who were sick I was able to prepare whereas the terrorist attacks took people from me without warning - my nephew was only 31 and married 8 months, my aunt lost two of her three children that day and my best friend lost her fiance.
That being said as a mother I understand where KM is coming from because you always think of your children before yourself. Many kids attend better high schools in Manhattan and now not only do you have to worry about your kid getting mugged (which, knock wood) might be a black eye and a brusied ego, or getting hit by a car, you worry about them getting stuck in an attack. I can only imagine the horror the parents of the Stuy kids and the day care center in BPC went through. -
bripod wrote: Yesterday at Dulles a woman was asked to peel her banana for fear it might conceal an explosive device...
I would be so tempted to start waving the banana around, yelling, "Allah akbar!!!"
They'd shoot me dead, of course, but up to that point it would be so funny. -
Great post. Well done, bripod.
-
[quote="bripod"]I'm not saying that they shouldn't tell us. I'm saying that I think it's the role of government and the media to present the information to the public in more reasonable manner -- i.e., I would like it if I could rely on those most in position to disseminate accurate and timely information to do so in a more measured, rational way. Instead of trying to terrify people at a time when their emotions are understandably running very high, I'd like rational, calm advice on precisely how worried I should be. Instead, I get "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" and "no more beverages on airplanes."
Your post needs a star.
I think this administration did a terrible disservice to this country by using the fear the terrorists created for their own agenda. The fear was real, the scars left to many people's psyche's are real and the disgusting way the administration used the fear to push through their various programs is real. I guess what I am saying is even though there has been an often histrionic approach to terrorism, that doesn't lessen the real fear that being attacked left on many people. Like everything, it isn't black and white. -
This a very interesting discussion I must say. I have one thing to add. I agree that when talking about "traditional" terrorism - i.e. the types of attacks we've seen so far, yes the chances of you being hurt are pretty slim. This is true, but is also ignoring all of the psychological, and economic. Even that being said, the real thing to fear isn't a backpack blowing up on the subway, or even a plane hijacking. Its the threat of someone getting their hands on some sort of WMD that would inflict mass casualties. Even a dirty bomb would make the city uninhabitable for who knows how long. Not only could these weapons kill millions, they would economically destroy our country, and even the world.
This is what I fear. Yes, NYC is probably one of the biggest targets in the world, and no, I ain't movin! -
willregistersoon wrote: Even a dirty bomb would make the city uninhabitable for who knows how long.
not to throw doubt into any argument, but all stats of what would happen if a dirty bomb came say the absolute opposite. it would make a few blocks unihabitable. it's not like setting off a nuclear weapon where changes in the location's molecular structure (or however it works). it's like little tidbits of radioactive material being blown up and the "shrapnel" is tons of little radioactive particles. ergo, no big crater. -
kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=Anonymous]If our great nation of oil and cars featured mote cities that were truly pedestrian oriented, with easy, affordable access to true community centers where people could gather and interact…if other American towns housed arts and culture venues, restaurants serving ethnic foods from around the globe, and cafes sparked by intellectual conversation, all within walking distance from home, I’d be delighted to leave Brooklyn and explore these exciting American cities. A vision of a ghostly silent suburbia, tidy houses placed on lifeless manicured lawns, surrounded by a fortress of Applebees, Office Depot, Lowe's, WalMart, Dick's Sporting Goods, and Circuit City frightens me. I was fortunate to go to Europe once in my life and see the narrow streets of cities that were created before cars. It blew my mind away.
Please--there are cities with ethnic food and interesting people. Even the small city I grew up in Upstate has every kind of food and three important collections of art. I get really annoyed by that New York Centric point of view--it is arrogant. Maybe you should get on a bus and explore some other cities because you might be surprised to meet diverse people everywhere.
Could you walk around your town and get everything you needed without a car? I've been upstate to New Paltz, which was nice, but people still needed cars to get to a major movie theater or the train station. I really like towns where you don't need cars, so please let me know if you can share any towns that would be nice to visit. -
Subject: Re: Does the latest terrorist plot make you wonder.....
kensingtonmom wrote: Does this latest terrorist plot make anyone wonder if living here is such a hot idea? I can't help but think when we are ALWAYS the target if I should cash in on my mega profits made from my Park Slope coop, which would now be profits from my Kensington House and flee to another city before they do get us again. Paranoid? Realistic? Is it really so much better here than say, Philadelphia? And what happens when they do finally get the subway...is it worth it?
Nice that George Dubya's dumb talk has slapped a big target on us.What's a better, safer place than the good ol' USA? Canada maybe?
Just curious. Today I keep asking myself what is keeping me here. -
willregistersoon wrote: Its the threat of someone getting their hands on some sort of WMD that would inflict mass casualties. Even a dirty bomb would make the city uninhabitable for who knows how long. Not only could these weapons kill millions, they would economically destroy our country, and even the world.
This is rank exaggeration. The fact is that the frequently touted "dirty bomb" and "chemical weapons" are completely unable to produce the kinds of casualties proposed.
Dirty bombs simply "raise radiation levels somewhat above normal background levels in a small area. A common recommendation from nuclear
scientists and engineers is that those exposed should calmly walk away." (from another Mueller article -- http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf. Yes, there are other sources than Mueller, but it's Friday afternoon and I'm lazy, and he's who I've been reading lately.)
Chemical weapons are similarly ineffective at producing mass casualties on the scale so often assumed. The main reason that chemical warfare is so infrequently engaged in is that it's just not all that effective at killing people -- just google or check wikipedia for "Aum Shinrikyo" to see how effectively a group with a billion dollars and hundreds of scientists was at deploying a chemical weapons attack.
Nuclear weapons are another matter and quite capable of producing that kind of damage; however most countries with the technology to produce nuclear arms have been understandably reticent to hand over that kind of power to a terrorist organization. Ensuring that the world's supply of nuclear arms is closely guarded and does not fall into terrorist hands is one of the things I would rather our government focused on achieving, instead of, oh I don't know, hyping the danger for political gain. -
bripod wrote:
I agree with you 100%. I think the stupid color-coded terrorism warning system has been shamefully manipulated by the government. I think we will see lots of questionable terrorism alerts in the weeks and days leading up to the midterm elections.
A rational response would be to increase the sort of intelligent, effective law enforcement actions that led to the prevention of this latest attack -- investigation, realistic assesment of threat, intelligence gathering -- rather than blanket pronouncements to the public at large that essentially amount to "You should be scared." I don't believe that a populace that is frightened is any less susceptible to threat than one that isn't, and any policy that does little more than stoke the fear that the attack was meant to produce in the first place is a bad policy. I think the public's fear of terrorist attack has been deliberately inflated by both the government and the mainstream media, for a variety of reasons (none of which really matter to my argument). -
Subject: Re: Does the latest terrorist plot make you wonder.....
Parkslopedope wrote: Nice that George Dubya's dumb talk has slapped a big target on us.What's a better, safer place than the good ol' USA? Canada maybe?
Yes. Move to Canada. It's totally safe. -
Subject: Re: Does the latest terrorist plot make you wonder.....
linusvanpelt wrote: [quote=Parkslopedope]Nice that George Dubya's dumb talk has slapped a big target on us.What's a better, safer place than the good ol' USA? Canada maybe?
Yes. Move to Canada. It's totally safe.
new zealand. -
bripod wrote: Chemical weapons are similarly ineffective at producing mass casualties on the scale so often assumed. The main reason that chemical warfare is so infrequently engaged in is that it's just not all that effective at killing people -- just google or check wikipedia for "Aum Shinrikyo" to see how effectively a group with a billion dollars and hundreds of scientists was at deploying a chemical weapons attack.
Right, but, as you suggest, and the 9/11 Commission concluded, the Bush administration has done an atrocious job on nonproliferation and securing nukes; for instance, those in the former Soviet Union. Isn't that an additional reason for concern that can't be answered with the "more people get killed crossing the street" argument?
Nuclear weapons are another matter and quite capable of producing that kind of damage; however most countries with the technology to produce nuclear arms have been understandably reticent to hand over that kind of power to a terrorist organization. Ensuring that the world's supply of nuclear arms is closely guarded and does not fall into terrorist hands is one of the things I would rather our government focused on achieving, instead of, oh I don't know, hyping the danger for political gain.
As for chemical weapons, you're quite right about millions, but the new Ron Suskind book made the point of how simple it would be to construct a chemical weapon that could kill thousands on a subway. I'd say to Google "mubtakkar," but I think I'm spelling it wrong. (But at least now we know the NSA will pick up this page while data-mining the Internet!)
You're right about dirty bombs, though. People have way overestimated this threat (though it could do a lot of property damage).
The one thing I will agree with willregistersoon about is: if it were just a matter of truck bombs and backpacks, I'd write it off as just another among many threats in life. But the threat of The Big One, which you can't totally write off, cannot just be dismissing by totaling up the number of people killed by terrorism back to 1900 or whenever. There is only one American city that offers Osama one-stop shopping for his goal of 4 million Americans, including 2 million children.
Not to be a downer. -
bripod wrote: however most countries with the technology to produce nuclear arms have been understandably reticent to hand over that kind of power to a terrorist organization....
Oh, also: A. Q. Khan. Again, not to be a downer. -
Guys - the exact number of people that would be killed by a WMD attack doesn't matter. Its disputed and all up in the air (no pun intended). The fact is, that it would affect everyone in the city severely, many physically, most pyschologically, and for all it would be economically crippling.
"Dirty bombs simply "raise radiation levels somewhat above normal background levels in a small area."
A "small area" in Manhattan can have hundreds of thousands living there, and even more if set off in a financial district during work hours.
Do you think they're just going to take some wooden planks and seal off those blocks for 20 years? The whole city would be affected.
This is not something to worry about - but it is certainly something to be concerned about, and take seriously. The wrong thing to do is write it off and play down/ignore the threat - especially for political reasons. -
A few comments, responding to each of your points:
Flexichick wrote: KD, there are MANY times I'm embarrassed to be an American. Why?
I didn't vote for him, and I'm American.
- because we voted for Bush.- because when Clinton was in office he was impeached because of something that had nothing to do with his ability to run a government
I wrote my Congressmen protesting this and urging them not to, and our Senator, Charles Schumer voted against impeaching Clinton three times. He's American.- because I've been all around the world and can really say that American tourists are truly more obnoxious and disrespectful of culture and customs than any other tourists .). The "Ugly American" is a stereotype, but like many stereotypes, there are elements of truth to it.
I've been overseas, and I didn't act like that, and I'm American. Did you act like that when you traveled? Aren't you American?- because even this country was founded on democracy and the right to vote, more people vote for American Idol than for President (and forget about the local elections!) and now the concept of "democracy" is used by us to force it down the throats of other countries
Are you saying you don't vote?- because international law is something we force on other countries and then ignore when it's inconvenient to us
Do you support this? Probably not, and aren't you American?
Okay -- in all seriousness, I get what you're saying, but I think that by being embarrassed to be an American, you're falling into the same trap that others do -- taking responsibility for the actions of SOME Americans rather than proving that not all of us are like that.
I know this is making me sound uber-patriotic -- I'm actually not, in the conventionally understood sense of the word. (I actually consider myself a citizen of New York City rather than a citizen of The United States, personally.) But I also refuse to let myself be defined by a stereotype, and I refuse to let the actions of others dictate my own -- and I sure as HELL refuse to be embarrassed by the actions of others when they don't apply to anything I've done. -
linusvanpelt wrote: Right, but, as you suggest, and the 9/11 Commission concluded, the Bush administration has done an atrocious job on nonproliferation and securing nukes; for instance, those in the former Soviet Union. Isn't that an additional reason for concern that can't be answered with the "more people get killed crossing the street" argument?
You're right; I didn't mean to suggest that a nuclear threat was not something to be concerned with -- I think we should be making a far greater effort to secure the world's "loose" nuclear arsenal than we are. But I still think the threat of a possible nuclear detonation in a populated area is one that needs to be looked at realistically -- yes, it would be a far greater catastrophe than annual automobile deaths, but how likely is it to happen? Saying that there are unsecured nukes in the Soviet Union is a far cry from a terrorist organization getting a hold of them and successfully deploying them. I think we should be doing more to make sure the risk of that happening is nil, but right now it's still a pretty low risk.
As for A.Q. Khan, if I recall correctly he traded secrets between countries and not stateless organizations -- no nuclear state has ever handed over one of its weapons to a terrorist organization (that I am aware of, of course), and I have a really hard time imagining one doing so. It's just not in their best interest, even if said terrorist organization promised not to use it on them. And said pretty please.
That all being said, maybe I'm totally wrong. But I do think I am right about this: the important question to ask is not "should we be scared of terrorists getting the bomb?" but "what are we doing to make sure this is as remote a possibility as we can make it?"linusvanpelt wrote: As for chemical weapons, you're quite right about millions, but the new Ron Suskind book made the point of how simple it would be to construct a chemical weapon that could kill thousands on a subway. I'd say to Google "mubtakkar," but I think I'm spelling it wrong. (But at least now we know the NSA will pick up this page while data-mining the Internet!)
All right, even given that I'm dubious about the ease of doing so (given everything I've read seems to point in the opposite direction regarding the effectiveness of chemical/biological weapons), I haven't read Suskind so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, thousands is a far cry from millions. (Okay, weak rebuttal but again, Friday afternoon -- cut me some slack
)
linusvanpelt wrote: The one thing I will agree with willregistersoon about is: if it were just a matter of truck bombs and backpacks, I'd write it off as just another among many threats in life. But the threat of The Big One, which you can't totally write off, cannot just be dismissing by totaling up the number of people killed by terrorism back to 1900 or whenever. There is only one American city that offers Osama one-stop shopping for his goal of 4 million Americans, including 2 million children.
But it is just another among many threats in life, and just because the consequences of this particular threat are far more heinous than others, it doesn't increase the risk of that threat being carried out. It's people overinflating the risk because of the horrible consequences, and therefore reacting in ways that often do little to reduce and in fact might increase the risk, that worry me.
Not to be a downer.
I can't really argue that New York isn't an ideal target in the event of such an attack, but the existence of an ideal target does not make the scenario any more (or less) likely.
Okay, I'm done for now -- time to get away from the computer and go enjoy me some nice weather. 'Cause you know we all might get blown up tomorrow. -
I didn't vote for Bush (either time)
I've written letters
I don't act like an ugly tourist.
Yet, I'm still embarrassed by our actions.
Hey, I may have a drunk uncle who acts like a fool in public. Is it my fault? No. But I'm still embarrassed. -
bripod wrote:
Peter Sandman, the risk-assessment guy, has done a lot about the tendency of people to overrate certain kinds of risks -- ones with heinous or violent consequences, ones they feel they have no control over, etc. -- which I would explain if I understood his work better. If we're reasonable, we should consider all these risks as an equation of (danger) * (likelihood) = (amount you should worry). And certainly I HOPE the likelihood of the big one is extremely low.
But it is just another among many threats in life, and just because the consequences of this particular threat are far more heinous than others, it doesn't increase the risk of that threat being carried out.
Anyway, clearly I'm just being sour because I'm working late on a Friday. -
There's too much I would like to respond to here, you folks had a lot of time on your hands today it seems. I'm glad I was playing softball in the park. :-)
I -
steve wrote: There's too much I would like to respond to here, you folks had a lot of time on your hands today it seems. I'm glad I was playing softball in the park. :-)
where can i get that job?
how well does it pay? -
Subject: Re: Does the latest terrorist plot make you wonder.....
The majority of Americans are not embarrassed to be an American. Some of those on the left seem to think attacks started with President Bush. They forget the 93 WTC bombing, USS Cole etc. I say trade every embarrassed American for someone from another country who appreciates what we have here.kosherdave wrote: [quote=brooklynpotter][quote=kensingtonmom]Does this latest terrorist plot make anyone wonder if living here is such a hot idea?
it makes me think that living in AMERICA isn't such a great idea. that being an american is becoming downright embarrassing.
Really, you're embarassed by being an american? How so? I'd bet more American Muslims are embarassed because of what their (extremist, mind you) brethern are doing to us.
Why the hell should Americans be embarassed? -
um Clinton lied. Had nothing to do with screwing Monica. He was disbarred as well.
Name one liberal who isn't a multi millionaire. How many millions did George Soros loose?
Right, there's no such thing as an obnoxious or overweight foreigner.
Yeah, we may have a lot of Americans who vote for an American Idol rarther than a president but it's this fucking great country everyone else comes running to when they need protection, aid or money. France can't even take care of their elderly in a fucking heat wave.Flexichick wrote: KD, there are MANY times I'm embarrassed to be an American. Why?
- because we voted for Bush. Not once, but twice! (yah yah, election fraud, Florida, hanging chads, etc.). A man with no foreign relations experience whatsoever (who grew up a multi-millionaire and didn't even have the INTEREST to leave the country (only ONCE) before he became President).
- because when Clinton was in office he was impeached because of something that had nothing to do with his ability to run a government (shit husband? yep, but leaders all over the world have mistresses and nobody lets it get in the way of govermment politics)
- because I've been all around the world and can really say that American tourists are truly more obnoxious and disrespectful of culture and customs than any other tourists (I was in Mexico once where there were 4 grossly overweight fanny-pack wearing tourists saying (in English) "Just give the bartender 5 pesos instead of 50. He'll never know the difference"? WTF? First of all, the bartender spoke WAY better English than they would have spoken ANY second language, and of course he's going to know the difference in his own currency!). The "Ugly American" is a stereotype, but like many stereotypes, there are elements of truth to it.
- because even this country was founded on democracy and the right to vote, more people vote for American Idol than for President (and forget about the local elections!) and now the concept of "democracy" is used by us to force it down the throats of other countries
- because international law is something we force on other countries and then ignore when it's inconvenient to us
Oh, man, I can go on and on.
But, I still think it's a better place to live than MANY other places in the world.
I still think our standard of living makes most of us comfortable. Sure, we all want nicer cars, places to live, vacations, etc, but at least most of us (yes, we still have a big poverty problem) are not picking through rubble and covered in flies.
Because we can still basically tell the government to fuck off to their face and can think and say most of the things we want to without being afraid of being killed for it.
And that's why I stay.
But, as I said, there are MANY times when the actions of our country embarrass me. Should I not be embarrassed? Should I just trust them to always do the right thing?
When I want to change something, I vote, I write letters, I try to do things to make it different.
Let the shit-slinging begin! -
Please elaborate on the various programs?
bripod wrote: I'm not saying that they shouldn't tell us. I'm saying that I think it's the role of government and the media to present the information to the public in more reasonable manner -- i.e., I would like it if I could rely on those most in position to disseminate accurate and timely information to do so in a more measured, rational way. Instead of trying to terrify people at a time when their emotions are understandably running very high, I'd like rational, calm advice on precisely how worried I should be. Instead, I get "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" and "no more beverages on airplanes."
Your post needs a star.
I think this administration did a terrible disservice to this country by using the fear the terrorists created for their own agenda. The fear was real, the scars left to many people's psyche's are real and the disgusting way the administration used the fear to push through their various programs is real. I guess what I am saying is even though there has been an often histrionic approach to terrorism, that doesn't lessen the real fear that being attacked left on many people. Like everything, it isn't black and white. -
eggcream wrote: um Clinton lied. Had nothing to do with screwing Monica. He was disbarred as well.
Name one liberal who isn't a multi millionaire. How many millions did George Soros loose?
Right, there's no such thing as an obnoxious or overweight foreigner.
Yeah, we may have a lot of Americans who vote for an American Idol rarther than a president but it's this fucking great country everyone else comes running to when they need protection, aid or money. France can't even take care of their elderly in a fucking heat wave.
[quote=Flexichick]KD, there are MANY times I'm embarrassed to be an American. Why?
- because we voted for Bush. Not once, but twice! (yah yah, election fraud, Florida, hanging chads, etc.). A man with no foreign relations experience whatsoever (who grew up a multi-millionaire and didn't even have the INTEREST to leave the country (only ONCE) before he became President).
- because when Clinton was in office he was impeached because of something that had nothing to do with his ability to run a government (shit husband? yep, but leaders all over the world have mistresses and nobody lets it get in the way of govermment politics)
- because I've been all around the world and can really say that American tourists are truly more obnoxious and disrespectful of culture and customs than any other tourists (I was in Mexico once where there were 4 grossly overweight fanny-pack wearing tourists saying (in English) "Just give the bartender 5 pesos instead of 50. He'll never know the difference"? WTF? First of all, the bartender spoke WAY better English than they would have spoken ANY second language, and of course he's going to know the difference in his own currency!). The "Ugly American" is a stereotype, but like many stereotypes, there are elements of truth to it.
- because even this country was founded on democracy and the right to vote, more people vote for American Idol than for President (and forget about the local elections!) and now the concept of "democracy" is used by us to force it down the throats of other countries
- because international law is something we force on other countries and then ignore when it's inconvenient to us
Oh, man, I can go on and on.
But, I still think it's a better place to live than MANY other places in the world.
I still think our standard of living makes most of us comfortable. Sure, we all want nicer cars, places to live, vacations, etc, but at least most of us (yes, we still have a big poverty problem) are not picking through rubble and covered in flies.
Because we can still basically tell the government to fuck off to their face and can think and say most of the things we want to without being afraid of being killed for it.
And that's why I stay.
But, as I said, there are MANY times when the actions of our country embarrass me. Should I not be embarrassed? Should I just trust them to always do the right thing?
When I want to change something, I vote, I write letters, I try to do things to make it different.
Let the shit-slinging begin!
Well, one of the things that I like (and already said) is the right to think what you want.
I don't care that Clinton lied. I care that he was even ASKED. It had nothing to do with his Presidency.
Now, Bush (et al) LYING about WMDs to start a war - THAT'S a lie I care about.
Getting a blowjob? eh, not so much
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds